1. Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009 Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition Chapter 5: CPU Scheduling

2. 5.2 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009 Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition Chapter 5: CPU Scheduling Basic Concepts Scheduling Criteria Scheduling Algorithms Thread Scheduling Multiple-Processor Scheduling Operating Systems Examples Algorithm Evaluation

3. 5.3 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009 Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition Objectives To introduce CPU scheduling, which is the basis for multiprogrammed operating systems To describe various CPU-scheduling algorithms To discuss evaluation criteria for selecting a CPU-scheduling algorithm for a particular system

4. 5.4 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009 Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition Basic Concepts Maximum CPU utilization obtained with multiprogramming CPU–I/O Burst Cycle – Process execution consists of a cycle of CPU execution and I/O wait CPU burst distribution

5. 5.5 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009 Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition Alternating Sequence of CPU and I/O Bursts

6. 5.6 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009 Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition The execution of a process consist of an alternation of CPU burst and I/O bursts. A process begins and ends with a CPU burst. In between, CPU activity is suspended whenever an I/O operation is needed. The process is called I/O bound if CPU burst are relatively short compared to the I/O burst. For example, a typical data processing task involves reading a record, some minimal computation and writing record. A process is called CPU bound if CPU bursts are relatively long compared to I/O bursts.

7. 5.7 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009 Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition The durations of CPU bursts have been measured extensively. Although they vary greatly from process to process and from computer to compute1, they tend to have a frequency curve similar to that shown in Figure 5.2. The curve is generally characterized as exponential or hyper exponential, with a large number of short CPU bursts and a small number of long CPU bursts. An I/O-bound program typically has many short CPU bursts. A CPU-bound

8. 5.8 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009 Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition Histogram of CPU-burst Times

9. 5.9 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009 Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition CPU Scheduler Selects from among the processes in ready queue, and allocates the CPU to one of them Queue may be ordered in various ways CPU scheduling decisions may take place when a process: 1.Switches from running to waiting state 2.Switches from running to ready state 3.Switches from waiting to ready 4. Terminates Scheduling under 1 and 4 is nonpreemptive All other scheduling is preemptive Consider access to shared data Consider preemption while in kernel mode Consider interrupts occurring during crucial OS activities

10. 5.10 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009 Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition Preemptive means that a process may be forcibly removed from the CPU even if does not want to release the CPU. It is because a higher priority process needs the CPU. Once a process gets CPU, the simplest approach is to allow the process to continue using CPU until it voluntarily yields CPU by requesting an I/O transfer etc.

11. 5.11 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009 Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition Dispatcher Dispatcher module gives control of the CPU to the process selected by the short-term scheduler; this involves: switching context switching to user mode jumping to the proper location in the user program to restart that program Dispatch latency – time it takes for the dispatcher to stop one process and start another running

12. 5.12 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009 Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition Scheduling Criteria CPU utilization – keep the CPU as busy as possible Throughput – # of processes that complete their execution per time unit Turnaround time – amount of time to execute a particular process Waiting time – amount of time a process has been waiting in the ready queue Response time – amount of time it takes from when a request was submitted until the first response is produced, not output (for time-sharing environment)

13. 5.13 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009 Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition Scheduling Algorithm Optimization Criteria Max CPU utilization Max throughput Min turnaround time Min waiting time Min response time

14. 5.14 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009 Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition First-Come, First-Served (FCFS) Scheduling ProcessBurst Time P 1 24 P 2 3 P 3 3 Suppose that the processes arrive in the order: P 1, P 2, P 3 The Gantt Chart for the schedule is: Waiting time for P 1 = 0; P 2 = 24; P 3 = 27 Average waiting time: (0 + 24 + 27)/3 = 17 P1P1 P2P2 P3P3 2427300

15. 5.15 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009 Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition FCFS Scheduling (Cont.) Suppose that the processes arrive in the order: P 2, P 3, P 1 The Gantt chart for the schedule is: Waiting time for P 1 = 6; P 2 = 0 ; P 3 = 3 Average waiting time: (6 + 0 + 3)/3 = 3 Much better than previous case Convoy effect - short process behind long process Consider one CPU-bound and many I/O-bound processes P1P1 P3P3 P2P2 63300

16. 5.16 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009 Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition Shortest-Job-First (SJF) Scheduling An other way to schedule jobs is to pick the job that will take the least amount of time to complete Associate with each process the length of its next CPU burst Use these lengths to schedule the process with the shortest time SJF is optimal – gives minimum average waiting time for a given set of processes The difficulty is knowing the length of the next CPU request Could ask the user

17. 5.17 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009 Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition Example of SJF ProcessArrival TimeBurst Time P 1 0.06 P 2 2.08 P 3 4.07 P 4 5.03 SJF scheduling chart Average waiting time = (3 + 16 + 9 + 0) / 4 = 7 P4P4 P3P3 P1P1 3 16 0 9 P2P2 24

18. 5.18 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009 Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition Determining Length of Next CPU Burst Can only estimate the length – should be similar to the previous one Then pick process with shortest predicted next CPU burst Can be done by using the length of previous CPU bursts, using exponential averaging Commonly, α set to ½ Preemptive version called shortest-remaining-time-first

19. 5.19 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009 Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition Prediction of the Length of the Next CPU Burst

20. 5.20 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009 Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition Examples of Exponential Averaging  =0  n+1 =  n Recent history does not count  =1  n+1 =  t n Only the actual last CPU burst counts If we expand the formula, we get:  n+1 =  t n +(1 -  )  t n -1 + … +(1 -  ) j  t n -j + … +(1 -  ) n +1  0 Since both  and (1 -  ) are less than or equal to 1, each successive term has less weight than its predecessor

21. 5.21 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009 Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition Example of Shortest-remaining-time-first Now we add the concepts of varying arrival times and preemption to the analysis ProcessAarri Arrival TimeTBurst Time P 1 08 P 2 14 P 3 29 P 4 35 Preemptive SJF Gantt Chart Average waiting time = [(10-1)+(1-1)+(17-2)+5-3)]/4 = 26/4 = 6.5 msec P1P1 P1P1 P2P2 1 17 0 10 P3P3 26 5 P4P4

22. 5.22 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009 Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition Priority Scheduling A priority number (integer) is associated with each process The CPU is allocated to the process with the highest priority (smallest integer  highest priority) Preemptive Nonpreemptive SJF is priority scheduling where priority is the inverse of predicted next CPU burst time Problem  Starvation – low priority processes may never execute Solution  Aging – as time progresses increase the priority of the process

23. 5.23 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009 Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition Example of Priority Scheduling ProcessAarri Burst TimeTPriority P 1 103 P 2 11 P 3 24 P 4 15 P 5 52 Priority scheduling Gantt Chart Average waiting time = 8.2 msec P2P2 P3P3 P5P5 1 18 0 16 P4P4 19 6 P1P1

24. 5.24 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009 Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition Round Robin (RR) Each process gets a small unit of CPU time (time quantum q), usually 10-100 milliseconds. After this time has elapsed, the process is preempted and added to the end of the ready queue. If there are n processes in the ready queue and the time quantum is q, then each process gets 1/n of the CPU time in chunks of at most q time units at once. No process waits more than (n-1)q time units. Timer interrupts every quantum to schedule next process Performance q large  FIFO q small  q must be large with respect to context switch, otherwise overhead is too high

25. 5.25 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009 Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition Example of RR with Time Quantum = 4 ProcessBurst Time P 1 24 P 2 3 P 3 3 The Gantt chart is: Typically, higher average turnaround than SJF, but better response q should be large compared to context switch time q usually 10ms to 100ms, context switch < 10 usec the average waiting time is 17/3 = 5.66 milliseconds P1P1 P2P2 P3P3 P1P1 P1P1 P1P1 P1P1 P1P1 0 47 101418222630

26. 5.26 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009 Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition Multilevel Queue Ready queue is partitioned into separate queues, eg: foreground (interactive) background (batch) Process permanently in a given queue Each queue has its own scheduling algorithm: foreground – RR background – FCFS Scheduling must be done between the queues: Fixed priority scheduling; (i.e., serve all from foreground then from background). Possibility of starvation. Time slice – each queue gets a certain amount of CPU time which it can schedule amongst its processes; i.e., 80% to foreground in RR 20% to background in FCFS

27. 5.27 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009 Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition Multilevel Queue The previous scheduling algorithms have been treated different kind of process in the same fashion. Typically there is a difference between interactive process and non-interactive process. The interactive process generally require much faster response time than non interactive process. These process can be separated and can be scheduled separately. The interactive process should be scheduled more quickly than non interactive process. The ready queue can be split into different sub-queue. One sub queue can be used for each type of process.

28. 5.28 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009 Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition Multilevel Queue Scheduling

29. 5.29 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009 Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition Multilevel Feedback Queue The main difference between a multi-level queuing strategy and multi level feedback queuing strategy is that jobs move from one queue to an other over time. It is possible to implementing aging this way. A process can move between the various queues; aging can be implemented this way Multilevel-feedback-queue scheduler defined by the following parameters: number of queues scheduling algorithms for each queue method used to determine when to upgrade a process method used to determine when to demote a process method used to determine which queue a process will enter when that process needs service

30. 5.30 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009 Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition Example of Multilevel Feedback Queue Three queues: Q 0 – RR with time quantum 8 milliseconds Q 1 – RR time quantum 16 milliseconds Q 2 – FCFS Scheduling A new job enters queue Q 0 which is served FCFS  When it gains CPU, job receives 8 milliseconds  If it does not finish in 8 milliseconds, job is moved to queue Q 1 At Q 1 job is again served FCFS and receives 16 additional milliseconds  If it still does not complete, it is preempted and moved to queue Q 2

31. 5.31 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009 Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition Multilevel Feedback Queues

32. 5.32 Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne ©2009 Operating System Concepts – 8 th Edition Thread Scheduling Distinction between user-level and kernel-level threads When threads supported, threads scheduled, not processes Many-to-one and many-to-many models, thread library schedules user-level threads to run on LWP Known as process-contention scope (PCS) since scheduling competition is within the process Typically done via priority set by programmer Kernel thread scheduled onto available CPU is system-contention scope (SCS) – competition among all threads in system